The case concerned a Russian national from Dagestan who contested a return decision lodged by the BFA on 22 February 2021 and upheld by the Federal Administrative Court with judgement of 1 April 2021. The Supreme Administrative Court had annulled the judgment of the Federal Administrative Court in a first onward appeal on the grounds that the Federal Administrative Court had failed to consider that the applicant's husband was dependent on her support because he had lost his right forearm during the Chechen war and suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and therefore violated Article 8 of the ECHR when upholding the return decision. In the continued proceedings, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appeal as unfounded without holding an oral hearing on the grounds that the applicant had failed to submit documents relating to her husband's disability despite being asked to do so and could therefore not assess the level of dependency. The Federal Administrative Court did not hold an oral hearing stating that it would not give rise to further clarification of the case. Against this decision, the applicant lodged a second onward appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.

The Supreme Administrative Court admitted that insofar as the applicant had only submitted a psychotherapist's confirmation of her husband's psychotherapeutic treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder upon request, this was not sufficient to fully clarify the level of dependency between the applicant and her disabled husband. However, the Supreme Administrative Court held, that the lower court should have clarified the facts by holding an oral hearing and therefore wrongly decided not to hold such a hearing. Based on the above, the Supreme Administrative Court overruled the lower court’s decision on the grounds that it had made merely speculative considerations when weighing up interests and was therefore unlawful.